Quick thoughts on Firefox 29...

I've been using Firefox 29 for a couple of weeks now, I really have enjoyed it. The new Australis interface it's one of the features I like the most, mostly because I like the level of customization that gives me.

Even though it looks like Google's Chrome, I feel like anyone can tell them apart quite easily. The similarities are only skin deep, and there are many differences on the implementation of several features that clearly differentiate both browsers. The one that strikes me the most, is how much control you have on what controls you can have, and how many of them you can select the ones you actually use the most for easy access.

Another thing like I like personally, is how the StumbleUpon  tool bar is implemented and the fact that now you can hide easily using an icon integrated to the right of the search box. Most importantly, for me, is that tool bar is the same I love from previous versions of Firefox. When I compare it to how's implemented on Chrome, Firefox's is a far better implementation for what I'm concerned.

All my background themes work like a charm, and all the my other add-ons do as well. So, I get to enjoy Firefox more with the new Australis interface.

The only complaint I've, is that it crashes at times when I try to post a comment on Facebook. It seems to be a problem for those running GNU/Linux distros, but I don't know for sure. While this bug can be annoying, it doesn't diminish my love for Firefox all that much. I just hope that the bug gets squashed quickly.

Though I recommend both Mozilla's Firefox and Google's Chrome, my personal favorite is Firefox by a landslide. Firefox 29 has ensure this, and has cemented it as my go to browser for surfing the web.

Chromebooks are good news for GNU/Linux...

When a computer using an open source OS like Chromebooks can be considered a great Mother's day gift, it underscores how far open source software has come on usability for new nontechnical users.

I don't mean that that there aren't any mothers out there that have advanced technical skills, but when you can consider giving a Chromebook to anyone at any skill level it speaks well on how easy to use some user interfaces are on the open source arena. Chromebooks can be the first step to show mainstream users how easy to user GNU/Linux distros can be, and help to bring more people to our side of the field.

Chromebooks can be that missing link that has eluded GNU/Linux to become ubiquitous, and finally take the crown from Microsoft Windows. As such, it would be of great help to the GNU/Linux community at large, specially if Google plays fair and shares the changes it upstream improve the OS.

Not only that, by making aware of how easy to use and good GNU/Linux based distros can be, it could be great news for other distros by sending some users their way. By giving users an easy way in to an open source OS, supported by a company like Google with all that implies, much of the distrust and uncertainty about adopting a GNU/Linux based OS could be dispelled. With that, other distros like Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu and SUSE can have a bigger chance of being adopted by users that have needs that aren't covered by a Chromebook.

If the Chromebook's OS, Chrome OS, was offered on its own for users to install on hardware they already have could magnify the beneficial impact. While Chromium OS is offered for download, it would be nice to have an easier way to use Chrome OS without having to buy a Chromebook.

Yet, that Google's partners have started to meet a certain success selling Chromebooks gives some hope that GNU/Linux is on its way to become a mayor player on the consumer OS markets.

AMD's low power chips could mean great news...

The idea that AMD is moving away from using Intel's x86 got me thinking about what needs have people at the consumer level. Even though we won't see the new architecture at least until 2016, the idea of having such processor on you average laptop, tablet or desktop isn't that bad.

I mean, the K12 processor will be 64 bit compatible is good news. If it gets low power consumption and a good performance, it might be an option for people that don't need high computing power. I can see myself using a something like an ultrabook powered by this kind of processor, since I don't need that much power to begin with.

Besides, I like to bring my laptop with me and I can't really on finding an outlet to connect to easily all the time. So, if AMD can offer a processor based on ARM that give me the right mix of performance and long battery life I'm sold. It would make my life all that easier, and I can think of many more people who would like the idea as much as I do.

Sure, there will be a market for high performance processors based on Intel's x86 architecture. Yet, is seems that that market will become more of a niche market. Yet, I don't see the architecture going away if Intel play its cards right. Odds are that both architectures will coexist, and on occasion serve particular markets that are better suited by the strengths of each architecture.

In my case, the news are quite welcome. Hope to see AMD's ARM based go into consumer product and take off, since it would be beneficial to consumers that don't need that much processing power while needing low power use for extended battery life.

Let's not forget that high performance processors are not all there is to a computer, and not everyone needs them to have a good performing computer. At the end of the day, processing power it's just part of the equation to consider when buying a new computer. For most uses, there is no need for a high power processor because they won't be using it at its peak performance at all.

So, AMD releasing this new ARM based architecture is a big thing for user that don't need the performance that the x86 offers while having a much better suited for extended periods of time using your battery do to its low power consumption.

I want to see how all pans out, and hope for it to become a trend.

It's not about the devices, is about the people who use them...

What makes technology useful to people, is when it actually does well helping people to complete their work, learn new things, connect with others or really enjoy their spare time without getting in the way.

The moment any piece of technology gets in they way, it fails at the job it was given to do. All technology should be seamlessly integrate into the activity it was design to be used in, and not take more attention from the user that it's necessary to use effectively. At the core of whatever we are doing, should always be the activity itself and not the tools around it.

Also, let's get rid of the idea that we need a single do it all device or hundreds of devices for each of our activities. Each person should be able to have as many devices as he, or she, wants to have. True, some activities can use a single device while others might need a dedicated device. The important thing, is that the devices used should always be designed with the user in mind.

With every device, there always will be a learning curve if the user doesn't know how to use it. Yet, the learning curve shouldn't be a barrier for new users.

In many ways, we should be put people at the center when designing new devices. The we need to adapt devices to the needs of the people who are to use it, and not have the people to get out of their way to adapt each time a new device comes along. Most of the building blocks on what people need to be there are out there, there is no need to reinvent the wheel each time a new device comes along.

While there are found new ways to arrange the work flow, in order that people do things more effectively, people still have the same physical limitations to adapt to the new work flow. The moment we don't let people be the focus of the device, and the work flow, we have doom the whole thing to failure.

The focus should always be how the devices falls into how people will use, and interact, with it. What will the people who will be use the device expects from it, and how it will be used at the field. There will be things to will need to be polished after it's released, since it's almost impossible to get everything right from the start, but that's better than missing all the marks because we didn't put the users first.

I say we put the people first, and have technology serve our needs. Great technology is the one that fulfills our needs, lets us become better persons. In the end, is about make both individuals and society better than we ever were.

All and every operating system can, and will, crash...

Now and then, I've meet people who said that one or another OS is uncrushable. They seem to believe that just because they haven't crashed their system at some point in time, it means that no one will ever be able to do so. This belief seems to be most spread on people using an Apple's OS.

Any OS can crash, but some are more stable and robust than other. By this I mean, than some operating systems are harder to crash because they are more resilient because of the way they where designed. In essence, under what operating load an OS will crash is determined by the design parameters.

If an OS is well designed, and used as intended, crashes shouldn't happen under normal circumstances. The only OS that crashed on me on regular basis has been Windows Vista, which seem to crash for no particular reason. Windows 95, 7 and XP did crash on me on from time to time. Yet, those times where when I did put to much strain on the system resources until the system just gave up.

Since I moved on to GNU/Linux, some 7 years ago, I've come along two systems crashes. One on Ubuntu and another using Linux Mint.  On both cases, putting to much strain on system resources was the cause, not a fault of the OS it self.

On the Apple's operating systems, I've no first hand experience. Yet, I've seen people who use OS X on regular basis crash it from time to time. So, as with Windows and GNU/Linux, OS X can be crashed.

It seems to me, that GNU/Linux and OS X are a lot more resilient to system crashes than Windows. On all my experience with Ubuntu and Linux Mint I mainly have to worry about certain application crashing because I had another one eating too much RAM at the time, but most of the time it has been smooth sailing. And for the people who use OS X, it's pretty much the same thing, a rouge application crashing because of the same reason.

Yet, I wouldn't call any GNU/Linux or OS X crash proof. It's a matter of how you use your OS, and of time, before a full system crash comes along.

Better use of the information technology we have...

As I have been digging more into the system we use at work to manage inventory, the more I come to realize how far behind we are in being able to use to use it to help the people at the floor to be more efficient.

Even though we are set to use it along with other tools to have a better control over the inventory, and to help the people who are filling the orders not to lose time finding the items they need. Not only that, it would help to have a better flow of information among all the areas.

As things are, there is a lot of lag on how the information flows. That lag really hurts us since not all the areas are at the same page at the same time, with all the misunderstandings and confusion that in brings. The most important thing, is that the table is set in other to have the information flowing in a timely manner to the people who need it.

Most importantly, the data bases needed to work with are already there. Now, what is needed is to use them to create information that is valuable and get it where is needed at the right time.

There are already plans to start having more tools on the floor to make this a reality, and I can only see it making the whole process a lot more efficient and easy to follow. At the moment, there are too many blind spots that make improvement a bit tricky. Eliminating those blind spots, means that when an area of improvement is detected it can be done much faster.

Not only that, areas where value can be added can be identified a lot faster. The same goes to those areas that are not really needed, and should be dropped. The energy can be better directed to improve things, and to add value to costumers.

If we really follow that path, I've high hopes.

Hacking put to good use...

It irks me when I hear the term hacker in mostly negative ways, then a hacker does something like this and it remains me of the original sense of hacking. On the original days of computers, hackers came together to try to come with new ways to use what they had.

Most hackers continue to do this, sometimes doing things that could be at least be called dubious just to prove it can be done. The Xbox One gamepad is one example of a hacker coming with an use that some gamers wanted, but that Microsoft wasn't giving to them.

For me, that's an area where open source can be of help to hackers and hackers can give to open source. In many ways, if you allow hackers to adapt software and hardware openly to other uses and to let them contribute their hacks back to the community is one of the best ways to make open source projects better faster. And by having those hacks occurring openly, the risk of having any malicious side of it coming out of it to a minimum.

As with anything where people are involved, there will be some that will try to come with ways to hack in ways that are not beneficial. Yet, I don't think that those will be the norm. The nature of open source will help to keep it that way, since most of the people working on those hacks can contribute it to keep those hacks from bad use.

Hack in itself it's neutral. It's the people that do that hacking, who actually use it for good or for bad. Instead of making hacking an evil act, lets make it attractive to those who will make use of it for the good of community that will make use of the hack they make.

Pushing hackers, and the skills the make use of, aside as unwanted people we are set to lose of a lot of things that could benefit us enormously. We need them to work on the open, so that their work can benefit as much people as possible. Only by doing this, can we have a more rapid progress on as many fields as possible.

Hacking is a skill set that can go both ways, but when allow it to grow in an open space that pushes it to be used for the good of us all it can do wonders for all.

My mind wondering after watching Cosmos...

As I was watching Cosmos last night, somehow I realized how similar the scientific and FLOSS communities are in many respects.

Both communities do they strive on individuals working together, in an open way that promotes sharing information and testing ideas before they become accepted as facts. People test each others ideas, and put them to work when they prove their value.

Even though most of the time they work in parallel to each other, they do have points where each other interact. Where one provides with tools, or ideas, that allows the other work toward their objectives a lot more efficiently.

Though FLOSS owes its existence to the science, since without the discoveries made by the scientific communities the FLOSS community wouldn't have much to work on, FLOSS does pay back that debt by giving back tool that allow science to move forward. Both help each other grow and move forward, it could be said that both communities live in a symbiotic relationship.

What's more impressive, at least for me, is that it's far more common that I ever imagine to find scientist that work on FLOSS project in order to advance science. Some because they needed to create the tools they needed for their research, or because they knew how to code and found a FLOSS project they wanted to contribute to.

Other thing, is that you don't have to be a scientist to contribute to the advancement of science. If you know how to code, you can join any FLOSS project you like that helps develop the tools that scientists need for their research.

Both communities are about people together, the scientific community to find out how the cosmos works and the FLOSS community around finding the best solution for a task. Even if the end of each community is different, the core values of their members are the same.

No need to the perfect distro...

Going through the comments of a post on Google + today, I came to realize that the GNU/Linux community doesn't actually needs a perfect distro.

There is a need that available distros work the best they can for the purpose they where made. Each and every distro will have it's inherent strengths and weaknesses, and there is nothing bad or wrong with it. The main thing, is that they do what their users need from them.

The fact that GNU/Linux has the flexibility to be used to make the vast array of distros, from general purpose to specific use, speaks volumes of how good it is for developers and users alike. It gives both the ability to create distros that carter specific needs, tastes and work flows all built on a common base.

In some sense, the perfect distro depends on the specific needs of each user. What's the intended use for the distro will dictate what it needs to work, and how it should do things. It's a mistake to try to have one distro to do all, specially when we can have as many as they are needed. What it's a strength in one distro, can be a weakness on another.

If anything, we need to make the underlying technologies of GNU/Linux stronger so that all distros can work on top of them. In some respects, we need to strengthen the standards on which distros work so that users can trust that their distro of choice will work.

At the core of GNU/Linux should always be the openness that has allowed us to have the variety of distros that conform to the needs of us the users. There will be disagreements, but if they can made to work to our benefit, and make our communities stronger.

A laptop and a smartphone, my perfect combo...

The more I think about it, the more I realize that tablets aren't for me. If I aren't at home, where using a laptop is way more convenient for me, I'm more likely to be at my favorite coffee shop or bar where using my smartphone to check in or send a quick text is way more practical.

At home, I'm either surfing the web, editing my blogs, chatting or on a video call. For me, it's a lot more practical to use my laptop, which has the added bonus that I can take to my favorite coffee shop or my best friend house to either do some work or just geek out. I simply can't see myself using a tablet to do any of this, I just find it to be rather uncomfortable and they still can't do the kind of multitasking I do.

When I go out, I prefer to take a smartphone with me. It allows me to quickly check in on Foursquare, take a quick photo or note, and to listen to my music on the go. Not only that, it also helps me to keep me in touch with texts, Whatsapp or a quick call. Not only that, I can keep share whatever I want to on Facebook, Google + or Twitter with ease and without loosing a hearth beat.

I can keep track of what I have to do using my agenda and the calendar app at my smartphone, and quite easily I must say. And since I always have one of the at hand, it's really hard for me to be reminded of what I've to do.

It's not like I've anything personal against tablets, I just don't think that they are for everyone or that we all need to have one despite all the hype around them. They are just one way people can access mobile computing, and should be seen as the option they are.

More than ever, I come to believe that there will be several ways to have access to mobile computing. How we access it will depend on our lifestyles, and how integrated we want it to be.

For better, or worse, mobile computing is here to stay and will keep evolving in ways we may not phantom today. I want to see it evolve in a way that it enhances the human experience, and it helps us create a better society.

The headaches of proprietary software...

At work, we use SAP to manage our most of our key aspects of our daily operations. It has made evident the weaknesses of using proprietary software, and how frustrating they can be.

Two of weaknesses are the most evident, and the ones that impact us the most. The first one, is the fact that when a fix is needed on the inner working of the software there is no way it can be done within the organization itself. We need to go the people who provide us with the licences so that they fix the problem. This means that it takes longer to solve the problem, and at times there have been some misunderstandings since the one who made the fix wasn't the one who received the information about it on first place.

In our case, we have people who are more than capable to fix any of the problems we have been facing. Yet, they have their hands tied because they can't do it because they don't have the access needed to make it so.

The other problem, is that we are in a position where the vendor has us locked to use their services. While we could move to another service provider, it isn't that practical because we just own the client side of the software. It's not the best position to be in, since the amount of data we produce is copious and we depend on the the software to be able to do business.

This causes a lack of flexibility that is problematic, since problems that could be solve sooner if the they could be worked in house simply can't be worked on the spot. The worst part is that, some of those problems haven't been completely solve and have been dragging simply because we depend on the them to give us the solution.

With an open source software, our IT department could be the one that handles most of those problems. While we could hire support to an outside company, access to the core parts by our IT department could be our first option to solve most of our problems.

In many ways, the more I use proprietary software the more I love open source software.